Judgment 1. This application in revision is on behalf of the accused Ram Prasad Sao. It is directed against his conviction under Sec.16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as recorded in the Courts below. His sentence in the trial Court consisted of one years rigorous imprisonment besides a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment and that of fine maintained. Thereafter, he has preferred this revision seeking to assail his such conviction and sentence. 2. In the trial Court, this petitioner as also his father Kurna Sao had been prosecuted and both were awarded the same sentence, as above, by the Magistrate. In appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge held him (father) not guilty and acquitted him. 3. On 26-7-1967 the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) visited the petitioners grocery shop along with the two witnesses (P.Ws. 2 and 3). At that time, petitioners father was noticed selling articles to customers in this shop. He (P.W. 1), after disclosing his identity to him (Kurna Sao) asked him to sell samples of mustard oil and haldi that were stored in the shop for sale. He also served upon him the necessary notice in that behalf. He then purchased 375 grams of mustard oil and 450 grams of haldi out of that stock for which he paid him the required price. He (P.W. 1) then divided those oil and haldi samples into three equal parts each and put them in three containers and then packed and sealed them in presence of the petitioners father. Thereafter, he handed over one of those samples to him, after obtaining his receipt therefor. Later, after obtaining necessary orders of the higher authorities, be (P.W. 1) sent one each or these samples to the public Analyst for examination and report. The reports of the public Analyst, in due course, were received indicating that the samples so sent had been found to be adulterated. In the case of oil sample, it was found to be highly adulterated with linseed oil (vide Exhibit 6/1) and the other, that is, haldi was found to have been adulterated containing excess lead. The reports of the public Analyst, in due course, were received indicating that the samples so sent had been found to be adulterated. In the case of oil sample, it was found to be highly adulterated with linseed oil (vide Exhibit 6/1) and the other, that is, haldi was found to have been adulterated containing excess lead. On receipt of those reports, the Food Inspector submitted his report for their prosecution to the District Medical Officer of Health, who, in turn, by virtue of his authority vested in law, sanctioned their prosecution and forwarded it to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for necessary cognizance. On that report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in his order dated 28-2-1968 took cognizance of the offence against the above two persons and transferred the case to another Magistrate for trial where in due course they were tried with the above result. In appeal, as already shown, the rather-accused was acquitted and the sentence of this petitioner was modified. 4. The accused persons in their defence denied to have committed the offence alleged. They pleaded that they did not have any such shop and they had been falsely implicated. It was said that the petitioner had a small shop in which he used to sell biscuits and papers to children. Their defence did not, however, find favour with either of the Courts below. 5. Mr. A.B. Ojha appearing for the petitioner has challenged the legality of petitioners conviction on the ground that there had been no compliance by the Food Inspector of the mandatory provision of R.18 of the (Bihar) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). According to him, under this Rule 18 it was imperative on the Food Inspector to have sent to the Public Analyst a specimen impression of the seal used by him to seal the containers and other packets by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him. After this had been done, under Rule 7 of the Rules a duty was imposed Upon the Public Analyst to compare the seals of the containers and the outer cover with Specimen impression received separately and then note the condition of the seals there on. After this had been done, under Rule 7 of the Rules a duty was imposed Upon the Public Analyst to compare the seals of the containers and the outer cover with Specimen impression received separately and then note the condition of the seals there on. The submission of learned counsel is that since there was failure on the part of the Food Inspector to have sent the specimen impression of the seal used by him, to seal the containers containing those samples, there was no question of the public Analyst making a comparison of the seals on those containers and the outer cover with that specimen seal, obviously leading to the non-observance of his duty in that behalf required under Rule 7. In view of such failure on their part to comply with these mandatory provisions of Rules 7 and 18, the petitioners conviction has to be deemed as vitiated and must be set aside. To support this stand, he has placed reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in Daitari Mahto V/s. State, 1970 BLJR 223 : (1971 Cri LJ 129) in which learned Judges have laid down that Rules 7 and 18 are mandatory in nature and any non-compliance of the same makes the conviction illegal. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that he has no difference with the above principle of law enunciated by this Court. His contention, however, is that the fact of this non-compliance cannot be said to be established on record, rather whatever materials are there they tend to prove the compliance. In this connection be has pointed out that no such objection had ever been taken from the accuseds side during the trial or appeal, and this is sought to be urged for the first time in this revision. According to him, if any such objection had been taken at the trial stage it would have been possible for the prosecution to produce the relevant materials before the Court to prove that these provisions of law had been duly complied with and there was no failure on the part of the Food Inspector or the Public Analyst in that behalf; in its absence, the prosecution was led to believe that the defence had no grievance on this account and so the prosecution did not think it necessary to have those materials on record to establish this fact. 7. 7. In view of the above submissions of the parties, it has been felt necessary to look into the materials on record to find if the case suffers from this defect as to vitiate the petitioners conviction. Their perusal, however, does not establish the correctness of the petitioners case in this respect. 8. In his aforesaid report (Ext. 6/1) relating to the mustard oil sample, the Public Analyst has clearly certified that he had received the sample for analysis, properly sealed and fastened and he found the seal intact and unbroken and that the seal fixed on the container of the sample tallied with the seal impression sent by the Food Inspector and the sample was in the condition fit for analysis. This public document (Ext. 6/1) was admitted in evidence without objection. There is no suggestion from the petitioners side that that part of the Analysts certificate where he has stated about the tallying of the containers seal with the sample seal impression sent by the Food Inspector is false or incorrect. No attempt from the side of the defence appears to have ever been made during the trial to have the public Analyst in the Court, or even as a Court witness, to show the incorrectness of this statement. The Food Inspector (P.W. 1) appears to have been cross-examined at length from the side of the accused. No suggestion, however, appears to have been whispered in that cross-examination to allege that he had failed to send the specimen impression of his seal to the Public Analyst while sending that sample. Regard being had to his (P.W. 1s) cross-examination coupled with the aforesaid specific statement of the Public Analyst in his report (Ext. 6/1) that the seal as affixed on the sample container tallied with the seal impression sent by the Food Inspector, they can well be taken to establish the fact of the specimen seal being in the hands or the Public Analyst so that he compared the two and found them tallying as so certified. The argument that this certificate had just been typed in the routine manner by the office which the Analyst simply signed without actually trying to ascertain about its truth, cannot, I think, be accepted in the absence of any material to show that it was really so. The argument that this certificate had just been typed in the routine manner by the office which the Analyst simply signed without actually trying to ascertain about its truth, cannot, I think, be accepted in the absence of any material to show that it was really so. If his office was either so careless or dishonest, as to incorporate this certificate falsely in the report (Ext. 6/1) there is no reason why it should not have done so in the other report (Ext. 6) relating to haldi sample. Both these reports are from the same office and relate to the two samples received by it the same day for examination from the same source. If the Analysts office was out to play this mischief against the accused persons, there was no difficulty in its doing the same in Ext. 6 also. But, there is no such certificate in it (Ext. 6) though both of them (Exts. 6 and 6/1) are of the same date, i.e. 19th August, 1967. So, its presence in Ext. 6/1 and absence in Ext. 6 obviously appears to be a circumstance in favour of the correctness of this certificate as it occurs in the former. 9. Here, I may relevantly refer to Illustration (e) of Sec.114 of the Indian Evidence Act which authorises the Court to presume, unless shown to the contrary, that official acts are regularly performed. Working on this presumption, one can expect that the Food Inspector had actually complied with the provision of law in this behalf as incorporated in Rule 18 unless the other side has been able to show that it had actually not been done. There is, however, nothing on record to come to any definite conclusion that the Food Inspector had actually omitted to send that specimen seal at the time of sending the sample to the Public Analyst. As already noticed, no suggestion like this had been even whispered in his (Food Inspectors) lengthy cross-examination. On the contrary, there is the specific assertion of the Public Analyst, as above, that he had compared the two seals and found that they tallied. Unless that specimen seal had been in the hand of the Public Analyst as sent by the Food Inspector, how could the former compare it with the seals fixed on the container to find out if they tallied or not. 10. Unless that specimen seal had been in the hand of the Public Analyst as sent by the Food Inspector, how could the former compare it with the seals fixed on the container to find out if they tallied or not. 10. For the reasons stated above, the compliance of the provisions of Rules 7 and 18 would appear to be established in the case, atleast so far as the sample of mustard oil is concerned. As such, even assuming for a moment that there was no compliance of these provisions as regards the sample of haldi, but that will not invalidate the conviction of the petitioner for the offence of adulteration as alleged. He had been charged for storing and selling mustard oil and haldi in his shop which on examination were found adulterated. As it has been shown above, there was due compliance of the provisions of Rules 7 and 18 with regard to the mustard oil. Evidently therefore, no fault can be found with his conviction in so far this article is concerned. When that is so, even if his conviction is to fall for nonobservance of this mandatory provision of Law in respect of the other article, i.e. haldi, assuming for a moment that there was such a failure in fact, but that cannot rid him of his conviction in the case because it has been recorded as a whole and not separately for the two articles. 11. In the end, Mr. Ojha has requested for substantial reduction in the sentence of the petitioner on the ground that he is a young boy of 22 years age and had sold these articles in his shop which is quite petty having purchased them from wholesale dealers and could not, therefore be held directly responsible for their adulterated condition. It has also been pointed out that by now he must be deemed to have learnt the lesson of life having had to undergo heavy expenses to defend himself. On a consideration of these facts, according to counsel, he should not be made to go to jail again and the fine of Rs. 1,000.00 should be heavily slashed down to be more or less nominal. 12. After having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly his undisputed status as a petty village shop-holder, I am inclined to think that his sentence of imprisonment should be remitted. 1,000.00 should be heavily slashed down to be more or less nominal. 12. After having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly his undisputed status as a petty village shop-holder, I am inclined to think that his sentence of imprisonment should be remitted. As to his sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/-, there seems no good reason to reduce it keeping in view the nature of the offence. Accordingly, his sentence of imprisonment is remitted. His sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three months is maintained. 13. Subject to the above modification in the matter of sentence, this application stands dismissed.